Opinion
(August Term, 1852.)
1. In cases of usury the question of a corrupt intent must be submitted to a jury.
2. It is error in the court to assume such intent from the fact that a bond for money borrowed sets forth a larger sum than the amount actually borrowed.
APPEAL from Settle, J., at Spring Term, 1851, of MECKLENBURG.
Nat. Boyden, Craig, and Wilson for plaintiff.
J. W. Osborne and H. W. Guion for defendant.
The court charged that if the jury believed the (455) testimony of Kerr as to the excess of $50, there was usury in the consideration of the deed. To this the defendant excepts. There is error, consistently with the testimony of Kerr. There may or may not have been a corrupt intent on the part of Alexander to exact usury. The question of intent ought to have been submitted to the jury, and it was error for his Honor to assume the existence of this corrupt intent from the fact that the bond sets forth a sum larger by $50 than the amount borrowed.
PER CURIAM. Venire de novo.
Dist: Ray v. McMillan, 47 N.C. 229; Bynum v. Rogers, 49 N.C. 402.